If your answer is no can you justify your reasoning based on evidence.
Routine intracranial pressure monitor use increased from 32.4% in 1991 and 50.8% in 2000 to 77.4% in the current survey (p < 0.0001).Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care:
October 2007 - Volume 63 - Issue 4 - pp 841-848
doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318123fc21
Original Articles
My answer is no but not for evidence against it. It is the more common reason - economics. It is not cost effective as yet esp in developing countries. an alternative is transcranial doppler- though not as effective - can still give some idea.
Hello Mohammad,
In our Department of Neurosurgery at Addenbrooke's Hospital we do use both intraparenchymal microtransducer and EVD. Overall, it does really give you extra information, however there has been a huge study in the Journal of New England which compares therapy based on measurement/monitoring of ICP or without. I think it will be very helpful for you!
Georgios, I would appreciate if you could give me the reference. did it conclude in favour of invasive monitoring resulting in better patient outcome?
The paper is highly rated and has raised many eyebrows in the field, it concluded that for patients with severe traumatic brain injury, care focused on maintaining monitored intracranial pressure at 20 mm Hg or less was not shown to be superior to care based on imaging and clinical examination.
Hope that helps!
Best regards,
George
In Belarus we use it extremely rare - for economic reasons mostly I suppose (as Pratyush Chaudhuri mentioned above).
It is useful to assess the ICP for all severe head injury patients, but due to expense sometime we compromise.
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN NO ROLE OF ICP MONITORING OR EVD PLACEMENT.HOWEVER THERE IS ROLE OF OPENING THE CISTERNS THAT HELPS TO REVERSE THE PRESSURE GRAGIENT THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CSF MOVEMENT THROUGH THE VIRCHOW ROBIN SPACES INTO THE BRAIN PARENCHYMA.
Clinical observation would guide me pts progress and if found pt not improving, we may think of measuring icp